[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 134 (Friday, November 19, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H10045-H10053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2004
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 5382) to promote the development of the emerging
commercial human space flight industry, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5382
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Commercial Space Launch
Amendments Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.
(a) Findings and Purposes.--Section 70101 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ``human space
flight,'' after ``microgravity research,'';
(2) in subsection (a)(4)--
(A) by striking ``satellite''; and
(B) by striking ``services now available from'' and
inserting ``capabilities of'';
(3) in subsection (a)(8), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(4) in subsection (a)(9), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon;
(5) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following
new paragraphs:
``(10) the goal of safely opening space to the American
people and their private commercial, scientific, and cultural
enterprises should guide Federal space investments, policies,
and regulations;
``(11) private industry has begun to develop commercial
launch vehicles capable of carrying human beings into space
and greater private investment in these efforts will
stimulate the Nation's commercial space transportation
industry as a whole;
``(12) space transportation is inherently risky, and the
future of the commercial human space flight industry will
depend on its ability to continually improve its safety
performance;
``(13) a critical area of responsibility for the Department
of Transportation is to regulate the operations and safety of
the emerging commercial human space flight industry;
``(14) the public interest is served by creating a clear
legal, regulatory, and safety regime for commercial human
space flight; and
``(15) the regulatory standards governing human space
flight must evolve as the industry matures so that
regulations neither stifle technology development nor expose
crew or space flight participants to avoidable risks as the
public comes to expect greater safety for crew and space
flight participants from the industry.'';
(6) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(B) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon in
subparagraph (B); and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) promoting the continuous improvement of the safety of
launch vehicles designed to carry humans, including through
the issuance of regulations, to the extent permitted by this
chapter;''; and
(7) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``issue and
transfer'' and inserting ``issue permits and commercial
licenses and transfer''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 70102 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (17) as
paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (18), (21), and (22), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) `crew' means any employee of a licensee or
transferee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee
or transferee, who performs activities in the course of that
employment directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other
operation of or in a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that
carries human beings.'';
(3) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated by paragraph (1)
of this subsection, by inserting ``, crew, or space flight
participant'' after ``any payload'';
(4) in paragraph (6)(A), as so redesignated by paragraph
(1) of this subsection, by striking ``and payload'' and
inserting ``, payload, crew (including crew training), or
space flight participant'';
(5) in paragraph (8)(A), as so redesignated by paragraph
(1) of this subsection, by inserting ``or human beings''
after ``place a payload'';
(6) by inserting after paragraph (10), as so redesignated
by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following new
paragraph:
``(11) except in section 70104(c), `permit' means an
experimental permit issued under section 70105a.'';
(7) in paragraph (13), as so redesignated by paragraph (1)
of this subsection, by inserting ``crew, or space flight
participants,'' after ``and its payload,'';
(8) in paragraph (14)(A), as so redesignated by paragraph
(1) of this subsection, by striking ``and its payload''
inserting ``and payload, crew (including crew training), or
space flight participant'';
(9) by inserting after paragraph (16), as so redesignated
by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following new
paragraph:
``(17) `space flight participant' means an individual, who
is not crew, carried within a launch vehicle or reentry
vehicle.'';
(10) by inserting after paragraph (18), as so redesignated
by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following new
paragraphs:
``(19) unless and until regulations take effect under
section 70120(c)(2), `suborbital rocket' means a vehicle,
rocket-propelled in whole or in part, intended for flight on
a suborbital trajectory, and the thrust of which is greater
than its lift for the majority of the rocket-powered portion
of its ascent.
``(20) `suborbital trajectory' means the intentional flight
path of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion
thereof, whose vacuum instantaneous impact point does not
leave the surface of the Earth.''; and
(11) in paragraph (21), as so redesignated by paragraph (1)
of this subsection--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) crew or space flight participants.''.
(c) Commercial Human Space Flight.--(1) Section 70103(b)(1)
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``,
including those involving space flight participants'' after
``private sector''.
(2) Section 70103 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d),
and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Safety.--In carrying out the responsibilities under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall encourage, facilitate,
and promote the continuous improvement of the safety of
launch vehicles designed to carry humans, and the Secretary
may, consistent with this chapter, promulgate regulations to
carry out this subsection.''.
(3) Section 70104(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) by striking ``License Requirement.--A license issued or
transferred under this chapter'' and inserting
``Requirement.--A license issued or transferred under this
chapter, or a permit,''; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``Notwithstanding this subsection, a permit shall not
authorize a person to operate a launch site or reentry
site.''.
(4) Section 70104(b) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``or permit'' after ``holder of a
license''.
(5) Section 70104 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Single License or Permit.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall ensure that only 1 license or permit is
required from the Department of Transportation to conduct
activities involving crew or space flight participants,
including launch and reentry, for which a license or permit
is required under this chapter. The Secretary shall ensure
that all Department of Transportation regulations relevant to
the licensed or permitted activity are satisfied.''.
(6) Section 70105(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a license is not
issued'' and inserting ``the Secretary has not taken action
on a license application''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(including approval
procedures for the purpose of protecting the health and
safety of crews and space flight participants, to the extent
permitted by subsections (b) and (c))'' after ``or
personnel''.
(7) Section 70105(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``or permit'' after ``for a license''.
(8) Section 70105(b)(2)(B) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``an additional requirement necessary
to protect'' and inserting ``any additional requirement
necessary to protect''.
(9) Section 70105(b)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or permit'' after ``for a license''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end thereof.
(10) Section 70105(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph
(E) and inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) additional license requirements, for a launch vehicle
carrying a human being for compensation or hire, necessary to
protect the health and safety of crew or space flight
participants, only if such requirements are imposed pursuant
to final regulations issued in accordance with subsection
(c); and''.
(11) Section 70105(b)(2)(E) of title 49, United States
Code, as so redesignated by paragraph (11) of this
subsection, is amended by inserting ``or permit'' after ``for
a license''.
(12) Section 70105(b)(3) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Secretary may not grant a waiver under this paragraph that
would permit the launch or reentry of a launch vehicle or a
reentry vehicle without a license or permit if a human being
will be on board.''.
(13) Section 70105(b) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
[[Page H10046]]
``(4) The holder of a license or a permit under this
chapter may launch or reenter crew only if--
``(A) the crew has received training and has satisfied
medical or other standards specified in the license or permit
in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary;
``(B) the holder of the license or permit has informed any
individual serving as crew in writing, prior to executing any
contract or other arrangement to employ that individual (or,
in the case of an individual already employed as of the date
of enactment of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of
2004, as early as possible, but in any event prior to any
launch in which the individual will participate as crew),
that the United States Government has not certified the
launch vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight
participants; and
``(C) the holder of the license or permit and crew have
complied with all requirements of the laws of the United
States that apply to crew.
``(5) The holder of a license or a permit under this
chapter may launch or reenter a space flight participant only
if--
``(A) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the
Secretary, the holder of the license or permit has informed
the space flight participant in writing about the risks of
the launch and reentry, including the safety record of the
launch or reentry vehicle type, and the Secretary has
informed the space flight participant in writing of any
relevant information related to risk or probable loss during
each phase of flight gathered by the Secretary in making the
determination required by section 70112(a)(2) and (c);
``(B) the holder of the license or permit has informed any
space flight participant in writing, prior to receiving any
compensation from that space flight participant or (in the
case of a space flight participant not providing
compensation) otherwise concluding any agreement to fly that
space flight participant, that the United States Government
has not certified the launch vehicle as safe for carrying
crew or space flight participants;
``(C) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the
Secretary, the space flight participant has provided written
informed consent to participate in the launch and reentry and
written certification of compliance with any regulations
promulgated under paragraph (6)(A); and
``(D) the holder of the license or permit has complied with
any regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to
paragraph (6).
``(6)(A) The Secretary may issue regulations requiring
space flight participants to undergo an appropriate physical
examination prior to a launch or reentry under this chapter.
This subparagraph shall cease to be in effect three years
after the date of enactment of the Commercial Space Launch
Amendments Act of 2004.
``(B) The Secretary may issue additional regulations
setting reasonable requirements for space flight
participants, including medical and training requirements.
Such regulations shall not be effective before the expiration
of 3 years after the date of enactment of the Commercial
Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004.''.
(14) Section 70105 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d),
and by adding after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Safety Regulations.--(1) The Secretary may issue
regulations governing the design or operation of a launch
vehicle to protect the health and safety of crew and space
flight participants.
``(2) Regulations issued under this subsection shall--
``(A) describe how such regulations would be applied when
the Secretary is determining whether to issue a license under
this chapter;
``(B) apply only to launches in which a vehicle will be
carrying a human being for compensation or hire;
``(C) be limited to restricting or prohibiting design
features or operating practices that--
``(i) have resulted in a serious or fatal injury (as
defined in 49 CFR 830, as in effect on November 10, 2004) to
crew or space flight participants during a licensed or
permitted commercial human space flight; or
``(ii) contributed to an unplanned event or series of
events during a licensed or permitted commercial human space
flight that posed a high risk of causing a serious or fatal
injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830, as in effect on November
10, 2004) to crew or space flight participants; and
``(D) be issued with a description of the instance or
instances when the design feature or operating practice being
restricted or prohibited contributed to a result or event
described in subparagraph (C).
``(3) Beginning 8 years after the date of enactment of the
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the Secretary
may propose regulations under this subsection without regard
to paragraph (2)(C) and (D). Any such regulations shall take
into consideration the evolving standards of safety in the
commercial space flight industry.
``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
limit the authority of the Secretary to issue requirements or
regulations to protect the public health and safety, safety
of property, national security interests, and foreign policy
interests of the United States.''.
(15) Section 70105(d) of title 49, United States Code, as
so redesignated by paragraph (15) of this subsection, is
amended by inserting ``or permit'' after ``of a license''.
(16) Chapter 701 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 70105 the following new
section:
``Sec. 70105a. Experimental permits
``(a) A person may apply to the Secretary of Transportation
for an experimental permit under this section in the form and
manner the Secretary prescribes. Consistent with the
protection of the public health and safety, safety of
property, and national security and foreign policy interests
of the United States, the Secretary, not later than 120 days
after receiving an application pursuant to this section,
shall issue a permit if the Secretary decides in writing that
the applicant complies, and will continue to comply, with
this chapter and regulations prescribed under this chapter.
The Secretary shall inform the applicant of any pending issue
and action required to resolve the issue if the Secretary has
not made a decision not later than 90 days after receiving an
application. The Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on
Science of the House of Representatives and Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a written
notice not later than 15 days after any occurrence when the
Secretary has failed to act on a permit within the deadline
established by this section.
``(b) In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may
establish procedures for safety approvals of launch vehicles,
reentry vehicles, safety systems, processes, services, or
personnel that may be used in conducting commercial space
launch or reentry activities pursuant to a permit.
``(c) In order to encourage the development of a commercial
space flight industry, the Secretary may when issuing permits
use the authority granted under section 70105(b)(2)(C).
``(d) The Secretary may issue a permit only for reusable
suborbital rockets that will be launched or reentered solely
for--
``(1) research and development to test new design concepts,
new equipment, or new operating techniques;
``(2) showing compliance with requirements as part of the
process for obtaining a license under this chapter; or
``(3) crew training prior to obtaining a license for a
launch or reentry using the design of the rocket for which
the permit would be issued.
``(e) Permits issued under this section shall--
``(1) authorize an unlimited number of launches and
reentries for a particular suborbital rocket design for the
uses described in subsection (d); and
``(2) specify the type of modifications that may be made to
the suborbital rocket without changing the design to an
extent that would invalidate the permit.
``(f) Permits shall not be transferable.
``(g) A permit may not be issued for, and a permit that has
already been issued shall cease to be valid for, a particular
design for a reusable suborbital rocket after a license has
been issued for the launch or reentry of a rocket of that
design.
``(h) No person may operate a reusable suborbital rocket
under a permit for carrying any property or human being for
compensation or hire.
``(i) For the purposes of sections 70106, 70107, 70108,
70109, 70110, 70112, 70115, 70116, 70117, and 70121 of this
chapter--
``(1) a permit shall be considered a license;
``(2) the holder of a permit shall be considered a
licensee;
``(3) a vehicle operating under a permit shall be
considered to be licensed; and
``(4) the issuance of a permit shall be considered
licensing.
This subsection shall not be construed to allow the transfer
of a permit.''.
(17) Section 70106(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``at a site used for crew or space flight
participant training,'' after ``assemble a launch vehicle or
reentry vehicle,''; and
(B) by striking ``section 70104(c)'' and inserting
``sections 70104(c), 70105, and 70105a''.
(18) Section 70107(b) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``On the initiative''; and
(B) by adding the following new paragraph at the end:
``(2) The Secretary shall modify a license issued or
transferred under this chapter whenever a modification is
needed for the license to be in conformity with a regulation
that was issued pursuant to section 70105(c) after the
issuance of the license. This paragraph shall not apply to
permits.''.
(19) Section 70107 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as
subsections (e) and (f), respectively, and by inserting after
subsection (c) the following new subsection:
``(d) Additional Suspensions.--(1) The Secretary may
suspend a license when a previous launch or reentry under the
license has resulted in a serious or fatal injury (as defined
in 49 CFR 830, as in effect on November 10, 2004) to crew or
space flight participants and the Secretary has determined
that continued operations under the license are likely to
cause additional serious or fatal injury (as defined in 49
CFR 830, as in effect on November 10, 2004) to crew or space
flight participants.
``(2) Any suspension imposed under this subsection shall be
for as brief a period as possible and, in any event, shall
cease when the Secretary--
[[Page H10047]]
``(A) has determined that the licensee has taken sufficient
steps to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of the serious
or fatal injury; or
``(B) has modified the license pursuant to subsection (b)
to sufficiently reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of the
serious or fatal injury.
``(3) This subsection shall not apply to permits.''.
(20) Section 70110(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by inserting ``or 70105a'' after ``70105(a)''.
(21) Section 70112(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended--
(A) by inserting ``crew, space flight participants,'' after
``transferee, contractors, subcontractors,''; and
(B) by inserting ``or by space flight participants,'' after
``its own employees''.
(22) Section 70113(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by inserting ``but not against a space flight
participant,'' after ``subcontractor of a customer,''.
(23) Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by inserting at the end the following: ``This section
does not apply to permits.''.
(24) Section 70115(b)(1)(D)(i) of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by inserting ``crew or space flight
participant training site,'' after ``site of a launch vehicle
or reentry vehicle,''.
(25) Section 70120 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(c) Amendments.--(1) Not later than 12 months after the
date of enactment of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments
Act of 2004, the Secretary shall publish proposed regulations
to carry out that Act, including regulations relating to
crew, space flight participants, and permits for launch or
reentry of reusable suborbital rockets. Not later than 18
months after such date of enactment, the Secretary shall
issue final regulations.
``(2)(A) Starting 3 years after the date of enactment of
the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the
Secretary may issue final regulations changing the definition
of suborbital rocket under this chapter. No such regulation
may take effect until 180 days after the Secretary has
submitted the regulation to the Congress.
``(B) The Secretary may issue regulations under this
paragraph only if the Secretary has determined that the
definition in section 70102 does not describe, or will not
continue to describe, all appropriate vehicles and only those
vehicles. In making that determination, the Secretary shall
take into account the evolving nature of the commercial space
launch industry.
``(d) Effective Date.--(1) Licenses for the launch or
reentry of launch vehicles or reentry vehicles with human
beings on board and permits may be issued by the Secretary
prior to the issuance of the regulations described in
subsection (c).
``(2) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the
Secretary shall issue guidelines or advisory circulars to
guide the implementation of that Act until regulations are
issued.
``(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), no licenses
for the launch or reentry of launch vehicles or reentry
vehicles with human beings on board or permits may be issued
starting three years after the date of enactment of the
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 unless the
final regulations described in subsection (c) have been
issued.''.
(26) The table of sections for chapter 701 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item
relating to 70105 the following new item:
``70105a. Experimental permits.''.
SEC. 3. STUDIES.
(a) Risk Sharing.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
enter into an arrangement with a nonprofit entity for the
conduct of an independent comprehensive study of the
liability risk sharing regime in the United States for
commercial space transportation under section 70113 of title
49, United States Code. To ensure that Congress has a full
analysis of the liability risk sharing regime, the study
shall assess methods by which the current system could be
eliminated, including an estimate of the time required to
implement each of the methods assessed. The study shall
assess whether any alternative steps would be needed to
maintain a viable and competitive United States space
transportation industry if the current regime were
eliminated. In conducting the assessment under this
subsection, input from commercial space transportation
insurance experts shall be sought. The study also shall
examine liability risk sharing in other nations with
commercial launch capability and evaluate the direct and
indirect impact that ending this regime would have on the
competitiveness of the United States commercial space launch
industry in relation to foreign commercial launch providers
and on United States assured access to space.
(b) Safety.--The Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, shall enter into an
arrangement with a nonprofit entity for a report analyzing
safety issues related to launching human beings into space.
In designing the study, the Secretary should take into
account any recommendations from the Commercial Space
Transportation Advisory Committee and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel. The report shall be submitted to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Science within 4 years
of the date of enactment of this Act. The report shall
analyze and make recommendations about--
(1) the standards of safety and concepts of operation that
should guide the regulation of human space flight and whether
the standard of safety should vary by class or type of
vehicle, the purpose of flight, or other considerations;
(2) the effectiveness of the commercial licensing and
permitting regime under chapter 701 of title 49, United
States Code, particularly in ensuring the safety of the
public and of crew and space flight participants during
launch, in-space transit, orbit, and reentry, and whether any
changes are needed to that chapter;
(3) whether there is a need for commercial ground
operations for commercial space flight, including provision
of launch support, launch and reentry control, mission
control, range operations, and communications and telemetry
operations through all phases of flight, and if such
operations developed, whether and how they should be
regulated;
(4) whether expendable and reusable launch and reentry
vehicles should be regulated differently from each other, and
whether either of those vehicles should be regulated
differently when carrying human beings;
(5) whether the Federal Government should separate the
promotion of human space flight from the regulation of such
activity;
(6) how third parties could be used to evaluate the
qualification and acceptance of new human space flight
vehicles prior to their operation;
(7) how nongovernment experts could participate more fully
in setting standards and developing regulations concerning
human space flight safety; and
(8) whether the Federal Government should regulate the
extent of foreign ownership or control of human space flight
companies operating or incorporated in the United States.
SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 102(c) of the Commercial Space Act of 1998 is
repealed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Lampson) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman
from Texas if he is opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson)
opposed to the bill?
Mr. LAMPSON. I will support the bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
will control 20 minutes in opposition to the bill.
General Leave
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill now under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me congratulate someone who is
spending his last day on the floor as an activist for America's space
program. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) has been a tremendous
asset in our Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. He exemplifies the
spirit of activism and the support team for our astronauts and what
they have needed in order to be successful. I appreciate his support of
this amendment today, knowing that we both have worked on this, along
with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), and it has been purely
a bipartisan effort. We have had many, many hearings on this bill, and
today is a culmination of his career and, I might add, it is a
culmination of my career as chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics, as this is one of my last actions as chairman to be here
before us today.
The bill we speak about, H.R. 5382, the Commercial Space Launch
Amendments Act of 2004, represents a long and thorough process and also
a solid bipartisan effort to make commercial human space flight a
reality. Earlier this year, H.R. 3752 passed this House by a vote of
402 to 1. Thus, there is nothing to any charge to suggest that there
has been anything but pure, that
[[Page H10048]]
this bill has been operating purely in the open and with open
discussion and with the input from both sides of the aisle.
That bill's central premise that passed by 402 to 1 was that, after
being informed of the risks, that people can and should be able to
decide to buy a ticket and achieve their lifelong dream of flying into
space, even though they know that it is a risky proposition.
The House Committee on Science has worked diligently with the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to craft an even
more balanced, compromised bill which is being considered today, a bill
that actually has more controls and more, one might say, safety in it
than the first bill did, even though the central premise still is that
people have a right and, especially in a developing industry, it is
important to have that type of citizen input which would give them the
right to waive certain safety requirements they would not waive in time
when we are dealing with advanced technology and technology that has
already been commercialized.
We thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings,
for helping craft this legislation in the Senate that will ensure that
this new industry grows and matures, rather than is strangled in its
crib by overregulation. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics, I can think of no better way to end my tenure than to see
H.R. 5382 become law.
During my 8 years as chairman, I had the privilege to peer into the
future to see dynamic citizen astronauts returning to and from the
heavens which we can expect in the future. American entrepreneur Dennis
Tito ignored the screaming agony of our own space bureaucracy to show
the world that space will not be restricted simply to a chosen few.
Burt Rutan's tremendous accomplishment last month caught the attention
of the world and underscores the innovative and creative potential of
space entrepreneurs.
It is my sincere hope that H.R. 5382 will encourage a new breed of
private sector astronauts to continue leading the way in pushing the
boundaries of technology and safety by building and testing earth-to-
space vehicles. This fine piece of legislation carries forward my goal
of eliminating and reducing the possibility of some arbitrary
redirection or restructuring or abandonment of promising new space
endeavors for lack of an enabling regulatory regime or a bureaucracy
that wants to protect industry's rights until they are dead and can no
longer function.
H.R. 5382 promotes development of an emerging commercial human space
flight industry by putting in place a clear and balanced regulatory
regime.
Let me add, my colleagues are going to hear today that there is not
enough regulation in here to protect the consumer, but if this bill
goes down, there will be no regulation to protect the consumer. A vote
of no is a vote in favor of eliminating all of the regulatory safety
precautions that were put in during negotiations with the Senate.
This bill is drafted as an amendment to the existing Space Commercial
Launch Act to minimize disruption and confusion. The bill assigns the
Secretary of Transportation jurisdiction over commercial human space
flight and requires the Secretary to streamline the certification
process for experimental suborbital reusable space launch vehicles.
This approach will make it easier to develop new types of space launch
vehicles.
The bill also addresses qualifications for crew and space flight
participants.
I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman
Boehlert), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and, as I say, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) for this tremendous bipartisan
effort that we have had, a purely open effort that has been open to any
type of input all along. Until now, we have not had any objections
except here at the last minute.
I also want to thank the FAA, the House and Senate staff for helping
develop H.R. 52382. Their hard work and dedication stands as a shining
example of America's cooperative, can-do spirit. Because of the
tremendous efforts of all of those involved, H.R. 5382 ensures that
regulatory barriers will not hinder the growth of this emerging
industry, will not force this industry to go overseas, rather than
provide the jobs here and the development of technology here.
This is a very worthwhile piece of legislation. To vote against it is
a vote to strangle this baby in its crib. It is a vote to make sure
that industry develops overseas instead of here. It is a vote for no
regulation instead of reasonable regulation.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
supporting this bill, H.R. 5382.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a most extraordinary process here. The
chairman of the subcommittee just now said, at the last minute, now we
are confronted with proposals for regulation. Well, at the last minute,
we have this bill before us. If the gentleman were concerned, Mr.
Speaker, about including those who are concerned about safety in
flight, the Members on this side of the aisle would have been included
much earlier on in this process. The bill was not even introduced until
yesterday. We did not have a copy of an introduced bill to look at
until yesterday afternoon or evening. That is not the way we work on
our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We at least include
both parties in discussions.
Now, I want my colleagues to understand the language of this bill. On
page 13, line 17: ``Safety regulations. The Secretary may issue
regulations governing the design or operation of a launch vehicle to
protect the health and safety of crew and space flight participants.''
But, ``Regulations issued under this subsection shall be limited to
restricting or prohibiting design features or operating practices that
have resulted in a serious or fatal injury to crew or space flight
participants.''
Is the gentleman going to include on the space flight ticket the
disclaimer there has been no safety provided until after you are dead?
Our committee colleague of some years ago, Mr. Molinari of New York,
the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight at the time when I was chairing hearings and we looked into
FAA safety practices, he described FAA's procedure at the time as a
tombstone mentality. They act only after there is a fatality.
I do not want to see people dead from a space experiment and then the
Federal Government comes in to regulate.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in the legislation, the gentleman asks
whether or not someone should be able to sign off, and the legislation
clearly states that someone will have to sign off, knowing that, the
risk that he is taking.
I might also ask, the gentleman just read a section of the bill
talking about when regulation would be justified. But on line 12 of the
very same page that the gentleman was reading from, it suggests that
they may come in even if there is a risk. There does not have to be a
fatality. There just has to be a risk.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
This has been going on for 2 years. This has been a bill that we have
worked on, and the people on the Committee on Science and the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics on both sides of the aisle have
struggled with this for 2 years. During that entire time, we were
always open to any type of discussion. We were in contact with the
Committee on Transportation.
Also, let me add, talking about it not being last minute, this bill
passed the House in March of 2004, months and months ago, by 402 to 1.
At that time, if there were any problems with the bill, we would have
been more than happy, in fact, we were more than happy to try to
renegotiate the bill, which we did in the Senate, and Senator Hollings
raised some of the objections of my good friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
[[Page H10049]]
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully say to the chairman,
our side was never included, never advised, and when the bill passed
the House in March of this year, it did not have any reference of this
nature to safety.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
This part of the bill, actually, the House voted on a bill that did
not contain as much safety regulation as this bill does, and no one on
that side of the aisle opposed it then. Now, after we have included
safety provisions by Mr. Hollings' consideration, now it is objected
to.
Let me note, if this bill goes down, there will be no safety
regulations. So a vote no is a vote for no safety regulations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the full Committee
on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in strong support of this bill, which is the result of
laborious and painstaking bipartisan negotiations between our committee
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in the other
body.
This bill tries to strike a delicate balance between the need to give
a new industry a chance to develop brand-new technology and the desire
to provide enough regulation to protect the industry's customers.
{time} 1415
We think we have struck that balance and here is why. First, the bill
gives the Federal Aviation Administration clear authority for the first
time to regulate the commercial human space flight industry.
Second, the bill gives the FAA unlimited authority to regulate the
industry and its rockets to make sure they do no harm to third parties,
that is, people on the ground or in the air who are in no way involved
with the flight.
Third, the bill sets a clear timetable for when FAA will have
unlimited authority to regulate the industry and its rockets to make
sure they do no harm to the people on board.
But here is what the bill does not do. It does not allow the FAA
right now to guess whether some new untested rocket technology will do
harm to the people onboard. Why? Because this industry is at the stage
when it is the preserve of visionaries and daredevils and adventurers.
These are people who will fly at their own risk to try out new
technologies. These are people who do not expect and should not expect
to be protected by the government. Such protection would only stifle
innovation.
So instead of allowing FAA guesswork for the next several years, the
bill requires that anyone participating in launch, whether it is crew
or passenger, must be notified of all risk of flight and must be told
explicitly that the government has not certified the vehicle as safe
for crew or passengers. And the FAA can come in and prohibit rocket
designs and operational procedures that have already been shown to
fail.
Now, obviously, this Wild West or barnstorming or infant industry
state of affairs cannot obtain forever, if the commercial space flight
industry is to become more than an expensive and risky novelty. Safety
must increase, and gradually the industry will start to look more like
a common carrier. And that is why the bill allows FAA after 8 years to
regulate commercial space flight in pretty much the same way it
regulates the airline industry. But it seems to me kind of silly to
regulate Burt Rutan's vehicle, which has flown three times, as if it
was a Boeing 747. If we regulate it that way, then his craft will never
evolve into the equivalent of a 747.
So we have a balanced bill that will enable the commercial space
flight industry to experiment, and that will encourage the industry to
constantly improve its record of safety, so that within a relatively
short time, its technology will mature and customer base will grow to
the point that more regulation is warranted.
I want to thank our outgoing subcommittee chairman, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), for keeping after all of us on this
bill. He has been tenacious. I also want to salute the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) for his leadership and perseverance.
I want to thank also the chairman of our other committee, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for discharging this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this sensible,
balanced bill which will facilitate the development of a new industry
that will expand the horizons of all Americans.
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2004.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Rayburn Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.
5382, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5382 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.
Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over
certain provisions of the bill, I will agree not to request a
sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our
mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my
decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or
otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and
of your response acknowledging our valid jurisdictional
interest will be included in the Congressional Record.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2004.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I appreciate your decision to support
H.R. 5382, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of
2004. Your Committee has valid jurisdictional interests in
the bill as drafted.
I recognize that by forgoing a referral in this instance,
your Committee does not waive any rights involving provisions
within your Committee's jurisdiction. Per your request, I
will include copies of this exchange of letters in the
Congressional Record during debate on the House Floor.
I will continue to work with you to define the respective
jurisdiction of our Committees over this bill.
Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Aviation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
We all salute the innovation and the achievement that we have recently
seen in the early days of private space flight, and we certainly do
want to encourage that. But we go a little bit too far in this
legislation.
I do not understand why the committee has inserted the references to
paying passengers and that we would not regulate until after the
serious injury or death of paying passengers. It took me a decade here
in Congress to strip the FAA of its requirement to promote the
industry. That was something adopted in the very early days. It seems
to be similar to what is going on here, to say that in the early days
the Civil Aeronautics Board would have a charge of promoting the
industry and later regulation became more paramount. But up and to and
through the 90s until a tragic accident with then Air Tran, the
industry was both regulated and promoted by the same agency. I promoted
it out for years as a conflict. And it was only after that incident
that we finally changed the language and said, no, it would be
paramount that they would regulate in the interest of public health and
safety.
But here we are again trying to codify the old so-called ``tombstone
mentality'' of the FAA by including paying passengers. It is one thing
to say, here is someone who invented something or built something and
they are going to try and fly it at their own risk here or here is a
professional person who is going to try to fly something that was built
by this person, fully knowing the risk; but it is another thing to
begin to say paying passengers will fall under the same aegis in this
bill.
[[Page H10050]]
This was not considered by the Subcommittee on Aviation in any form
over the last 2 years. It was never referenced to the Subcommittee on
Aviation over the last 2 years. There may have been some communication
somewhere with some member of the staff or between some member of that
committee and some member of our committee, but not the Subcommittee on
Aviation who has jurisdiction over these matters.
So I would suggest that there is not an immediate crisis. There is no
reason that this bill must be rushed through today in this form. It
could well be passed next year. The liability provisions exist
elsewhere and would be continued elsewhere, and then we could have a
more thorough discussion of when it would be appropriate to begin to
regulate for the health and safety of passengers on these space crafts,
that is, I think something that is not wise to codify today because it
took us from 1932 or 1933 until 1996 to remove that provision in
regards to the FAA, 64 years or so that that carried over.
Even though it was long after the time when the industry needed
promotion or the FAA should be conflicting itself with promoting the
industry, they were still doing that. And people died because of that.
And it may not be in the next year or two, but 8 years is a pretty long
time to say we are going to go 8 years before there could be any
regulation regarding paying passengers.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I believe that the same level of that same criteria
that the gentleman is talking about was in place when airplanes
themselves were developing; but we would have had that same level of
progress in the development of aviation. Does the gentleman not believe
if we had the same level of regulation then that we have now would have
just stifled all sorts of creativity at a time when people knew they
were taking risks?
My father, I remember when he told me he got in on a plane that flew
in on a dirt road and they charged $5 to get on this plane. It was an
old World War I SPAT or something. It excited him so much about being
able to participate, and because of that we had a whole new industry
created because of that.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, here we would be looking at
presumably much wealthier people paying gigabucks to have the
experience. But still I think the point is that it is not necessary to
attract entrepreneurs. There are already entrepreneurs out there
experimenting. There are professional pilots out there willing to fly
these crafts. But to take the next step and say to paying passengers
who may or may not be a very knowledgeable and wealthy person or
someone of lesser means would be subjected to those risks without any
regulation. It just does not seem necessary to promote this industry at
this point in time.
It is already moving forward. The liability exemption I believe is
the key. But to say that if they are going to go to paying passengers,
they could not be regulated, I think that is kind of a bright line
where we could draw a line and agree.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
People who are spending $200,000 or $100,000 to go into space, they
are responsible enough to make a decision as to whether or not to take
the risk, rather than having the government trying to say there will be
no such people, and thus that contribution, that amount of money that
would be available to developing new craft will no longer be available.
The rich people around the world would like to spend $100,000 or
$200,000. That could help us develop new types of space craft rather
than relying on the government and the taxpayer to come up with all the
loot in developing new crafts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Lampson), a real activist on our committee and who will be sorely
missed, who, I might add, has championed a space agenda much of which
was incorporated into the President's own space agenda later on. He
will be sorely missed.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher). It has been a pleasure working with him and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and on the Committee on Science and on the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Actually, it has been a
tremendous pleasure working with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as
well.
These things, hopefully, will be able, these concerns, will be able
to be addressed if this makes it back into the next session of
Congress.
I do want to speak in support of H.R. 5382, a bill to promote the
development of the emerging commercial human space flight industry.
I was an original co-sponsor of an earlier version of this bill, H.R.
3752, which passed earlier this year and we have already heard spoken
about.
While the idea of a commercial human space flight industry might have
seemed like science fiction, like a science fiction dream even a few
years ago, the recent successful flights of Burt Rutan's Spaceship One
show that the dream may be truly moving toward reality.
So the basic purpose of H.R. 5382 is to establish a framework for
regulating the emerging commercial human space flight industry. The
Committee on Science has heard ample testimony that such a framework is
needed if the companies are to make their plans and attract needed
investment capital. At the same time, Congress needs to ensure that
safety is protected as this new industry emerges.
One of the challenges in developing this legislation has been in
striking an appropriate balance between encouraging innovation and
providing sufficient safety regulation of this emerging industry. In
that regard, our discussions with the Senate have led to language that
clarifies that we care about both the growth of new industry and the
protection of the crews and the passengers of these new vehicles.
Mr. Speaker, when we debated the original version of this bill on the
floor earlier this year, I agreed with those who believed that there
were still some areas that could be improved on. While there are always
further improvements that can be made, I think that our subsequent
discussions with the Senate have led to a solid piece of legislation.
I think that the legislation before us represents the most feasible
compromise possible in this session of Congress. If it makes it into
the next session of Congress for discussion again, I hope that we will
work in as bipartisan a manner as we possibly can so we can address all
of the concerns of all of our Members so it will be moved forward to
provide a good framework for regulation.
I want to commend, again, my friend, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher), for his persistence and initiative on this issue. I
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5382.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, greatly regret the departure from this body of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) who has been a great Member of
this people's body and who among many other issues in which he has
distinguished himself has led the cause of missing and exploited
children, a cause that reaches throughout this great land and is a
great tribute to his very noble personal character, a genuine concern
for those who have been taken against their will, children exploited,
tortured and killed.
The gentleman will have a legacy from this body that will not be
surpassed in that arena. I thank the gentleman for his great
contribution.
I listened with great interest to the concern of the gentleman,
chairman of the subcommittee, ``that this industry will be strangled in
its crib by overregulation,'' to the chair of the full committee who
said, ``Protection would stifle innovation,'' who said, ``It would be
silly to regulate Burt Rutan's vehicle.'' I do not think safety
regulation is ever silly.
{time} 1430
I do not think we have ever overregulated safety.
[[Page H10051]]
For the record, I just want to state the language that had we been
given the opportunity to present we would have submitted, which is very
simply, on page 14 of the bill before us delete lines 4 to page 15,
line 7, replace with the following: Prescribe minimum standards
necessary for safety of design featuers and operation of a launched
vehicle, taking into account the inherently risky nature of human space
flight.
That is not a straitjacket. That is not strangling in its crib. That
is not language that I would, in any way, associate myself with for
commercial aviation. But in this era of uncertain exploration of space
for commercial purposes and carrying passengers, not scientists and
astronauts, I think we could put that language in, taking into account
the inherently risky nature of space flight. It gives a great deal of
latitude in the early regulatory period of this commercial space launch
activity. That is not protecting, as the gentleman called it, the
Chairman, protecting industry until they are dead.
On the contrary, I propose to put in place a regulatory framework of
at least a minimal stature to protect people before they are dead. That
is the issue.
I had a discussion pursuant to the request of the chairman of the
full committee and chairman of the subcommittee with the advocates for
this technology, the representative of Xcor company and their attorney
representing the company here in Washington, and their concern was FAA
might not have the technology skills to deal with new materials, new
engines, new power plants, a new class of vehicle. They would be
groping around with this new class of vehicle and would not think
creatively.
Oh, my goodness. After all, the FAA is under the jurisdiction of this
administration, and if they are not thinking creatively, I think we
would have some ability to encourage them to do so.
Secondly, the FAA, with a regulatory safety framework in place,
approved the entry into service and development of the new jet aircraft
in 1958, within a regulatory framework. Jet aviation did not stifle,
was not strangled in its crib by overregulation.
When technology brought new materials, composites to be used in tail
sections and wing sections, FAA did not strangle that new technology in
its crib but nurtured it along in a safe manner so that it could be
safely deployed.
When a general aviation aircraft manufacturer who is located in
Minnesota proposed an all-composite general aviation aircraft that had
never been attempted before, this regulatory framework of safety worked
with this company, and in 5-years that aircraft was certificated,
built, flying, and Cirrus Aviation is now the largest general aviation
aircraft manufacturer in the world. They were not strangled in their
crib. They were not suffocated, and no passenger has died because of a
safety framework put in place.
We do not propose to strangle industry but rather to protect the
public.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to reflect on the compromise language he talked about,
and, again, since we have not gone through a regular legislative
process here, since our committee had no opportunity to review this and
it is not amendable on the floor and they would not accept that in good
faith, let me point to an unintended effect here.
The way the bill is written, they are granting a blanket exemption to
the industry, including paying passengers, until such a point as there
is a serious injury or death, and then the full scope of the FAA's
current regulations would come to bear.
What the gentleman is proposing here would essentially sanction the
experimentation with lighter touch regulation at the outset, and I
think that that might actually get us further down this road than what
is being proposed here. But the unwillingness of the other side to even
consider the implications of extending this to passengers and then
whether or not that ever gets sunset or it takes some Member of
Congress half a century from now to get that stripped from law, because
you know it is 8 years in this bill, but then I can see it being
extended and extended and extended and becoming a mature industry, just
as the aviation industry did, with that provision still in place, until
there is a horrible tragedy.
So I think having this light touch regulation for public interest and
safety at the outset, given the expertise of the FAA, would be
preferable to all concerned, and it would not stifle or strangle the
industry in its nature.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have been suggesting over
and over again that the FAA will be restricted from any regulation
unless someone has died, and I believe that is an inaccurate reading of
this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the language of the
bill is limited to restricting or prohibiting design features or
operating practices that have resulted in serious or fatal injury.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, in the
paragraph right after that says ``or'' at the end of the paragraph the
gentleman is reading, or contributed to an unplanned event or series of
events after licensed or permitted commercial human space flight that
posed a high risk concerning a serious fatality.
What that means is that if there is a chance, if there is something
to indicate----
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman will suspend. The
gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) time has expired. There are 4
minutes remaining for the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and
there are 5 minutes remaining for the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to finish this
point.
Obviously, the gentleman is reading one paragraph, but the very next
paragraph negates the criticism of the bill, and that is the very next
paragraph underneath the one he is reading suggests that if there is a
reason for the FAA to be concerned, if there is a flaw that can be
pointed out, then it may step in to prevent a fatality or a serious
accident.
The question is whether the FAA and the bureaucracy should be able to
control the design of a new space launch vehicle before there are any
problems. Should then the space launch bureaucrats, the people who are
in government, who are in public service override the entrepreneur,
overside the scientist, override the experts and should they be in the
pilot seat even if there is no indication that there is any problem
with the design?
Now I think that would strangle the baby in the crib. In fact, it
would destroy this fledgling industry and send it overseas.
What we are talking about is an aerospace industry that needs all the
help it can get being limited from anybody paying for a flight and then
sending their job overseas. That makes no sense at all.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Let us read further. After the language in the bill that says
regulation shall be limited to restricting or prohibiting design
features or operating practices that have resulted in serious or fatal
injury to crew or space flight participants, it goes on to say, or
contributed to an unplanned event or series of events. There is a whole
series of conditions after this, but it is still subject to the first
language that says you have got to die first, serious fatal accident,
and I do not agree with what the gentleman is saying, that this is
going to strangle.
First of all, we have time to come back next year in due course, in
careful, thoughtful deliberation, in public hearings to expose this
issue, have a discussion of it and report a bill back to the House with
the appropriate safeguards and appropriately designate it the
Rohrabacher space commercial space amendments bill so that the
gentleman's parentage will be protected, but we should not have that
parentage associated with fatalities.
Why would the gentleman object? Why would the gentleman not have
discussed with us the safety issues when it
[[Page H10052]]
is the jurisdiction of this committee, and we do have some experience
and expertise with it, give us appropriate time during this very rushed
period?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the bill was referred to the Committee
on Science and referred to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
We have spent 2 years of hard work on this. It was common knowledge in
this body that this bill was in this committee. It was referred to us
officially. It even came for a vote on the floor so that between that
time we could have negotiated.
But let me note, before the bill passed on the floor there were two
public hearings, a policy roundtable with the experts from all over the
country and 6 months to negotiate.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Let us
take a look at what this bill will do and what is going to happen if it
is voted down.
If this bill is voted down, we are told to vote this bill down
because there is not enough regulation in the bill, regulatory power
given to the FAA in the bill to protect the public. Well, there is
protection in the bill, and there would be no protection, zero
protection, if this bill goes down.
Voting against this bill will also expose the Federal Government to
liability for licensed launches. All of a sudden, we have a situation
where it is not a question of whether or not we are going to have
something a year or 2 from now, after some magical time period, after
working on this 2 years, if it is just brought back next year, after a
short period of time, the problems will be solved. We are going to go
through a time period when we basically have zero protection, and the
Federal Government will be totally exposed to liability claims.
This bill will basically convince people who want to create this new
industry, the space launch industry, that they should not do it in the
United States of America. They will go overseas. This will strangle the
industry in the cradle, as I said over and over again, and it will
force these people to launch their rockets and build them overseas.
I would say that this bill actually prevents the government from
regulating passenger safety, and this bill will go, yes, maybe not all
the way we want, but we can come back in the next few years and add
what we want. But, right now, to kill this bill would be totally going
in the wrong direction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Again, we could move forward with the liability exemptions absent
this language, and the gentleman says that that would then mean that
there would be a more dangerous situation prevailing, or is he perhaps
saying we would not do the liability at all? Is that what he is saying,
we would do nothing? Why not just move forward the liabilities, absent
these provisions and these exclusions in the current legislation?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if I might add, because it puts the
government and it puts the bureaucracy in the control of the project,
rather than the designer, the entrepreneur and the scientist.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, how did we get to this point? If the
government is so in control, how did they have this first flight if the
government is overregulating and overcontrolling them?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would further yield, that is what
happens when we give the government the right to say yes or no to
people who are making new designs on technology.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if we just extended the
existing liability exemptions and we were silent on these other issues,
how would that be different than the circumstances which led to these
first flights?
{time} 1445
Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the full Committee on Science.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that the House
passed earlier this year, by a vote of 402 to 1, an earlier version of
this bill that gave the FAA less regulatory authority over commercial
human space flight than does the bill before us today. Without this
bill, the FAA will continue to license private space flights without
adequate authority to protect either the safety of the public or the
finances of the government. Please support H.R. 5382, just as you voted
for the initial version back in March.
Today's bill is the equivalent of a conference report, as it reflects
bipartisan negotiations within this body and with the other body. This
is good legislation; let us move it forward. Let us not stifle it. Let
us not take the position of the equivalent of not letting the Wright
Brothers test their ideas without first convincing Federal officials
that nothing could go wrong.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time in
recognition that the other side has the right to close.
Yes, this bill was considered by the House earlier this year, but
without this language; without any reference to safety and without any
consideration.
And I disagree that there is no protection if this language were
stricken. Under current law, and I am familiar with the commercial
space flight activities of DOT and FAA, under current law, the DOT must
issue a license to launch; and in the process of issuing that license
to launch can insist on safety regulations if it takes an assertive
stance and is concerned about safety of flight for experimental
personnel and for commercial passengers.
But, again, I come back to our very modest proposal of language that,
had we been included in the discussions that have been going on between
the Committee on Science in the other body, if our side would have been
included, we would have proposed language to prescribe minimum
standards necessary for safety of design features and operation of a
launch vehicle, taking into account the inherently risky nature of
human space flight.
We can defeat this bill and come back later tonight with an amended
version and fix it, or come back in the next Congress and do it right.
Let us not do tombstone safety.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the opposition to this bill is coming from a
fundamental misunderstanding of what the bill actually is all about,
and there is some argument to say that Members, that the gentleman's
committee was not engaged in this bill and, thus, he is upset about
that and such and, thus, you do not understand it.
The fact is this bill is very clear. The staff of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure was always available to look at what
we were doing. This was an open process. We have had negotiations on
both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) played important roles in
developing this, as have all the Democrats on our committee. This has
been a totally bipartisan effort.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is a misread that we are hearing today. We
are hearing that the opposition comes from the fact that, well, the FAA
can already regulate. That is a total misreading of what their FAA
regulations are. The FAA can only regulate in terms of the safety of
people who are not on that craft, meaning the safety
[[Page H10053]]
of the people on the ground. They cannot regulate based on the safety
of people on the craft. That is what this is all about.
We want to develop spacecraft that people can ride on. And if we have
the bureaucrats being able to control that, it will put a stranglehold
on those people trying to develop these craft. It is fundamentally
different than what the FAA has now with airplanes.
And, also, we have heard a total misreading of the bill again and
again that there is no right in here for there to be regulation unless
there has already been a fatality. That is not the case.
I urge Members to vote for this legislation. Do not strangle this
industry and drive these entrepreneurs offshore. Create the jobs here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5382.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________